296 

B282s 


' 


. .  • 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
UR5ANA-CHAMPAIGM 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2020  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/samaritanpentate00bart_0 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


AFR  10  1356 


MftR  31  !!IS3 


ft PR  -  7  I 


H 


1 1 1981 


i  -JUjO' 

U  • 


3  1981 


L161— H41 


JACOB,  SON  OF  AARON,  HIGH  PRIEST  OF  THE  SAMARITANS  AT  SHECHEM. 


I 

\ 


I 


I 


THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH: 


THE  STORY  OF 


A  SURVIVAL 
AMONG  THE  SECTS. 


BY  WILLIAM  E.  BARTON,  D.  D. 

*  i  4 

AUTHOR  OF  “THE  OLD  WORLD  IN  THE  NEW  CENTURY,”  “THE 
PSALMS  AND  THEIR  STORY,”  “  JESUS  OF  NAZARETH  : 

THE  STORY  OF  HIS  LIFE,  AND  THE  SCENES 
OF  HIS  MINISTRY,”  ETC. 


(  Published  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October,  1903, 
and  reprinted  by  the  courtesy  of  its  Editor.) 


/ 


OBERLIN,  OHIO  : 

THE  BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY, 


1903. 


u'sCJ’ 

i 

'’y'^0  tyjj  Z4?  w  u*  J^j  *  t  -r^'?- 

tyvt&lsyCrP 'sifijJ '&'J'*>'  VJ';^'V, 

J & .C’ 

&  ay  l*  Jj>  us>^>  i>  ^  r’  ^ 

t ->v 1  'j  o>J)  i Yffjl  O'  t^>'c>  ^ 

•*  .  |  .  //  4  m  ’  «  .  *  .  A  /  .  .  » 


*  I 


UlS^ 


5<0  VU*>  J*>".  •hrssf'h0^'* 

Cr^C 


AUTOGRAPH  TETTER  IN  ARABIC  OF  JACOB  THE  HIGH  PRIEST. 


13^8  }$c  (*b 


"B  Vi  ^  s 


THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 


BY  THE)  RE)VKRE;ND  WIIJJAM  K.  BARTON,  D.D. 


For  several  years  prior  to  my  tour  of  Palestine  in  1902, 
I  had  noted  with  interest  the  accounts,  in  books  on  bibli¬ 
cal  antiquities,  of  the  Holy  Scroll  at  Nablus.  This  man¬ 
uscript,  containing  the  Pentateuch,  is  believed  to  be  the 
oldest  manuscript  in  existence  of  any  portion  of  the  Bible. 
As  the  priests  show  it  with  great  reluctance,  and  are  sup¬ 
posed  to  exhibit  it,  even  to  their  own  people,  only  once  a 
year,  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  I  was  anxious  that  they 
should  not  substitute  for  it,  at  the  time  of  my  visit,  the 
more  recent  parchment  which  on  ordinary  occasions  they 
display.  My  friend,  Mr.  E.  K.  Warren,  chairman  of  the 
World’s  Sunday-school  Convention  Committee  of  Arrange¬ 
ments,  had  visited  Palestine  the  year  before,  and  had  seen 
the  ancient  scroll.  He  gave  me  a  letter  of  introduction  to 
the  High  Priest,  written  on  his  business  letter-head,  which 
rather  formidable-looking  document  I  found  of  service  on 
my  arrival  in  Nablus.  As  my  visit  opened  interesting 
personal  relations  with  the  High  Priest,  and  has  led  me  to 
some  subsequent  study  of  the  Samaritans  and  of  their  Pen¬ 
tateuch,  I  shall  give  somewhat  in  detail  an  account  of  this 
interesting  people,  and  of  the  contribution  which  their  ver- 


u 


6 


The  Samaritan  Pentateiich. 


sion  of  the  Pentateuch  may  afford  to  our  knowledge  of  the 
Old  Testament.  I  am  the  more  confident  of  the  timeli¬ 
ness  of  such  an  article,  because  recent  books  on  textual 
criticism  indicate  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  Samaritan 


^  'vstrzrrt  idAfC  V  -^ 

«  ^  /<A/A'  -2s<*\^rr}  -/vhB, 

**•  ■  ry^/^td  rx~-1  id  ^ xjn?r< 


'*S:SYJ\Jfrt/~£- V7ULJ tXS.  .  «_o  A.  lAs- 


^  A/-/ s'.-  •  rzrtvt/-,/ 

r*f*r*fr/.rr7^  >adfvc-77Avf<^  r^xi^'x^ry 
~!K3^£^,  XU3,77'?P/* 

•AidA^ c>£\es:/77‘ 
-V  c\  idA>^  ^1/^r^rn  A//V  rr/t*V' 

'  ^/^2/tfZjM^  o;  : -v*  id  'X/rf^-S 

^A»'UA/'^*C!^/)  nAfr?f 
***=>■ A'^v  '-  •  ^c^cs.  c’x.'^iry /v*  -  - 

.  V/7  A'VA/  £\‘"A>  • 

A  rrr.-.j^  *m  dAV.A/  *^i>*-*  A/TA^Ad} 

'"■'Aid  ^3.  A'A>  .•  *  ^ytdW  A'-  -U'  id' 

u  ■  Aa**x A"' ovixv. -\c.  wuw 

>  :i A*  3^  /“^  'v:/^  •*,*✓**  V  A  ^ 


UEAF  FROM  OFD  SAMARITAN  MANUSCRIPT. 


version,  and  also  because  popular  interest  has  lately  been 
turned  to  the  discovery  of  an  old  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in 
Damascus,  which  is  said  to  have  been  written  in  735  a.d. 
This  manuscript  is  reported  to  be  now  in  Cairo.  I  have 
recently  learned  that  one  of  the  younger  priests  of  the  Sa¬ 
maritan  synagogue  was  imprisoned  by  the  High  Priest 
some  months  ago,  on  the  suspicion  of  having  stolen  and 
sold  an  ancient  manuscript  from  the  synagogue  there. 
Some  people  in  Syria  believe  this  newly-discovered  Penta¬ 
teuch  to  be  the  missing  codex.  This  manuscript,  if  genu¬ 
ine  in  its  date,  would  be  several  hundred  years  earlier  than 
the  oldest  Old  Testament  manuscript  in  the  British  Muse¬ 
um;  but  it  is  still  quite  modern  as  compared  with  the 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


1 


Holy  Scroll  of  Nablus,  which  the  Samaritans  declare  was 
written  by  the  grandson  of  Aaron,  and  modern  scholars 
believe  must  be  nearly  as  old  as  the  Christian  era. 

The  Samaritan  sect  has  never  been  large  or  widely  scat¬ 
tered.  Two  hundred  years  ago  there  were  colonies  in  Da¬ 
mascus,  Cairo,  and  Gaza;  but  all  these  are  now  extinct, 
and  there  remains  but  one  community,  and  that,  fortunate¬ 
ly,  the  ancient  one  at  Nablus. 

Nablus,  corrupted  from  Neapolis,  occupies  the  site  of 
ancient  Shechem,  and  is  the  chief  city  of  Central  Palestine. 
Situated  in  a  beautiful  and  well-watered  valley,  between 
Mounts  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  with  Jacob’s  well  near  at  hand, 
it  is  the  most  fertile  and  one  of  the  most  interesting  spots 
in  Palestine.  Here  is  found  the  one  remaining  colony  of 
the  sect  founded  by  Sanballat  and  his  son-in-law  Manas- 
seh,  living  under  the  shadow  of  the  mountain  where  they 
built  their  synagogue  soon  after  432  b.c.  There  are  about 
one  hundred  and  sixty-five  of  them  now,  and  their  num¬ 
bers  are  practically  stationary.  They  lack  marriageable 
young  women,  and  will  not  marry  out  of  their  own  sect. 
They  are  very  poor,  and  could  hardly  live  but  for  the  fees 
of  the  tourists. 

We  arrived  at  the  outskirts  of  Nablus  at  the  close  of  an 
afternoon  in  March,  and,  leaving  our  horses  to  be  conduct¬ 
ed  to  camp  by  muleteers,  went  on  foot  through  the  narrow 
and  tortuous  and  often  overarched  streets  of  the  city  to 
the  Samaritan  community,  that  is  situated  at  the  upper 
end  of  Nablus,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Gerizim.  The  syna¬ 
gogue  is  the  principal  point  of  interest;  and  within  the 
synagogue,  which  is  plain  and  bare,  the  Holy  Scroll  is  al¬ 
most  the  only  article  of  value.  Both  this  and  the  substi¬ 
tute  were  exhibited  to  our  company,  the  largest  in  recent 
years. 

The  High  Priest  Jacob  stood  beside  the  ancient  roll, 
showing  it  with  solemn  pride.  He  calls  himself,  in  an  au- 


8 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


tograph  in  my  possession  and  written  in  old  Hebrew  and 
Arabic,  “Jacob,  the  son  of  Aaron,  priest  of  Shechem.”  He 
is  a  man  a  little  above  middle  life,  dark,  dignified,  and 
tall.  His  greeting  was  cordial.  I  presented  my  letter, 
but  I  could  not  make  the  priests  understand  from  whom 
the  letter  had  come,  as  they  were  unable  to  read  it.  Its 
lithographed  heading,  however,  impressed  them,  and  they 
treated  me  as  became  my  probable  right  as  a  person  intro¬ 
duced  by  some  one  whom  they  ought  to  remember,  and 
who  used  a  large  and  official-looking  letter-head.  It  is  al¬ 
together  likely  that  they  treated  me  with  as  great  consid¬ 
eration  as  they  would  have  done  if  they  had  been  able  to 
identify  me. 

Our  company  so  filled  the  synagogue  that  I  could  not 
examine  minutely  the  two  old  copies,  but  my  impression 
confirms  Conder’s  description  of  the  case  of  the  newer  one 
as  being  of  brass,  with  thin,  silver  arabesques.  The  older 
one  seemed  to  be  of  solid  silver,  and  the  manuscript  is 
very  old,  yellow,  torn,  and  patched.  The  ink  is  much 
faded,1  and  is  said  to  be  of  a  purplish  cast,  as  contrasted 
with  the  very  black  ink  of  all  the  other  manuscripts.2  At 
the  close  of  my  second  purchase  next  day,  I  procured,  as  a 
premium,  a  small  fragment  of  a  very  old  manuscript, 
whose  ink  is  so  faded  that  one  could  hardly  discern  the 
color,  save  that  on  the  back  it  has  stained  a  distinct  pur¬ 
plish  hue.  I  could  not  understand  the  claim  of  antiquity 
which  the  priest  made  for  it,  but  think  he  affirmed  that  it 
belonged  to  the  most  ancient  scroll.  I  have  no  suspicion 
that  the  Samaritans  would  mutilate  that  holiest  of  manu¬ 
scripts  for  money ;  but  if  I  knew  that,  in  the  undoubted 

1  “  The  handwriting  is  small  and  rather  irregular;  the  lines  far  apart; 
the  ink  is  faded  and  of  a  purplish  hue;  the  parchment  much  torn,  very 
yellow,  and  patched  in  places,  and  bound  at  the  edges  with  green  silk  ” 
(Conder,  Tent  Life  in  Palestine,  p.  26). 

2  “  The  ink  is  black  in  all  cases  save  the  scroll  at  Nablus”  (Deutsch 
Remains,  p.  407). 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


9 


repairings  of  the  old  one,  some  tattered  bits  like  this  had 
been  cast  aside  in  the  process  of  restoration,  I  should  be 
willing  to  be  convinced  that  I  have  one  of  them.  The 
manifest  antiquity,  the  fact  that  it  has  long  since  been  worn 
out  of  its  place, — there  is  no  new  tear  on  any  portion  of  its 
edge, — the  yellow  color  of  the  parchment,  the  irregular 
lines  as  contrasted  with  the  ordinary  ruled  lines,  and  the 
purple  ink,  make  this  not  at  all  impossible. 

The  Samaritans  believe  that  this  oldest  of  their  manu¬ 
scripts,  and  the  original  from  which  all  their  later  copies 
have  been  derived,  was  made  by  Abishua,  son  of  Eleazar, 
son  of  Aaron,  a  dozen  years  after  the  first  crossing  of  the 
Jordan.  They  declare  that  it  contains  a  cipher,  made  by 
the  thickening  of  the  stems  of  letters  down  the  middle  of 
the  manuscript,  giving  the  name  of  the  writer  and  the  date 
of  the  writing.  This  same  inscription,  however,  is  copied 
in  other  of  the  manuscripts,  and  thus  reduces  to  a  common 
level  of  incredibility  what  is  of  itself  incredible.  But  it  is 
doubtless  many  centuries  older  than  any  other  known  man¬ 
uscript  of  any  part  of  the  Bible.  It  is  altogether  likely 
that  it  covers  more  than  half  the  twenty-five  hundred  years 
that  carry  us  back  to  the  rupture  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Samaritans.  It  is,  indeed,  a  most  venerable  document, 
and  is  regarded  by  the  Samaritans  with  almost  supersti¬ 
tious  reverence.  It  is  written  on  the  hair  side  of  skins, 
said  to  have  been  the  skins  of  rams  offered  in  sacrifice. 
Conder  and  others  say  that  it  contains  the  skins  of  “about 
twenty  rams.”  But,  as  it  was  not  unrolled  for  Conder, 
this  is  a  pure  guess;  and  I  am  sure,  judging  from  a  copy 
of  the  Torah  of  the  same  width  which  I  bought  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  that  there  are  nc*t  less  than  fifty-two  of  them.  The 
leather  is  backed  with  other  parchment,  covered  with  in¬ 
scriptions  from  the  Law  in  larger  letters.  The  width  of 
the  parchment  is  about  sixteen  inches,  and  it  is  wound  on 
two  rollers  surmounted  by  large  metal  knobs,  and  the 


IO 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


whole  is  inclosedjjpn  a  cylindrical  case  of  silver,  double- 
hinged  at  the  back,  so  that  it  may  be  closed  or  opened  at 
will,  and  the  manuscript  rolled  either  way,  exposing,  when 
the  roll  is  open,  a  column  at  a  time.  The  skins  are  sewed 
together,  end  to  end,  and  must  make  the  roll  at  least  a  hun¬ 
dred  feet  long. 

A  young  priest,  a  son  of  Jacob  the  High  Priest,  gave  me 
his  personal  attention,  and  brought  me  to  where  another 
attendant  was  selling  little  tin  cases  in  facsimile  of  the 
great  roll,  each  containing  a  small  roll  of  paper  with  Sa¬ 
maritan  characters  on  it.  I  was  about  to  buy  one  of  these, 
when,  finding  it  to  be  the  last  on  hand,  and  one  of  the  la¬ 
dies  desiring  it,  I  let  her  have  it,  and  indicated  to  the  priest 
that  I  greatly  desired  one  for  myself.  He  made  some  ef¬ 
fort  to  find  one,  but  apparently  our  large  company  had 
bought  out  the  stock.  There  were  none  to  be  had.  How- 
ever,  he  brightened  with  sudden  animation,  and  at  the 
same  time  assumed  an  air  of  mystery.  Taking  me  through 
the  court  into  the  connecting  court  of  the  High  Priest’s 
house,  he  led  me  up  an  outer  stair  into  an  upper  room. 
Here  he  produced  a  scroll,  and  offered  it  to  me,  but  had 
scarcely  begun  when  the  door  burst  open  and  the  women 
of  the  household  entered,  protesting  vigorously  against 
what  they  supposed  him  to  be  about  to  do.  He  drove 
them  out,  shut  the  door  behind  them,  and  barred  it.  Then 
he  and  I  began  negotiations  for  the  scroll  containing  a 
modern  copy  of  the  Pentateuch,  inclosed  in  a  tin  case,  the 
crude  facsimile  of  the  silver  case  below. 

The  book  was  written  on  hand-made  paper  about  six¬ 
teen  inches  wide.  The  sheets  sewed  together  made  a 
scroll  a  hundred  and  six  feet  long.  It  is  ruled  with  blind 
lines,  fifty-four  to  the  column,  and  contains  two  hundred 
and  thirty  columns.  It  begins  with  no  heading,  but  has  a 
colophon  with  a  little  scrollwork  in  red  ink  at  the  end,  the 
colophon  reading,  “The  Perfect  Torah;  Blessed  be  Jeho- 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


ii 


vah,  who  gave  it.”1  The  breaks  between  the  five  books 
are  indicated  by  four  lines  of  blank  paper.  The  lines  are 
ruled  like  the  Jewish  manuscripts,  but  not  with  ink.  It 
was  somewhat  worn  by  use,  and  in  one  place  had  been 
worn  in  two.  A  good  many  corrections  appeared  in  it,  and 
in  one  or  two  places  it  had  been  patched  by  pasting  a  new 
piece  over  an  error.  It  was  these  things  that  gave  me  as¬ 
surance  of  its  genuineness,  for  I  could  not  read  it.  Had  it 
been  entirely  new,  I  could  have  had  no  assurance  that  I 
was  not  buying  a  book  made  to  sell  to  tourists.  But  the 
book  was  evidently  one  in  present  use  in  the  synagogue. 
It  showed  the  work  of  several  different  scribes  in  its  differ¬ 
ent  parts.  It  was  not  badly  soiled,  and  seemed  to  me  al¬ 
together  desirable. 

The  price  demanded,  however,  was  larger  than  at  the 
time  I  felt  like  paying,  and  our  negotiations  proceeded 
slowly.  My  companion  talked  very  few  words  of  English. 
He  knew  the  value  of  an  English  pound,  or  “bun”  as  he 
called  it,  and  this  was  his  unit  of  value.  When  we  failed 
to  come  to  terms,  he  drew  from  under  the  bed  in  the  room 
a  copy  of  Genesis.  It  was  newer  than  the  other,  with  wider 
columns,  and  the  lines  were  less  regular  and  not  ruled. 

At  length,  and  after  all  my  companions  had  left  the 
synagogue  and  returned  to  the  camp  outside  the  city,  I 
came  to  terms  with  the  priest.  I  was  to  have  the  second 
roll,  Genesis,  which  I  identified  by  our  agreement  on  the 
name  “B’reshith,”  and  the  case  in  which  the  larger  roll 
had  first  been  displayed.  But  he  indicated  that  I  must  not 
be  seen  leaving  with  it  in  my  arms.  Wherefore  the  priest 
put  it  under  his  robe,  took  me  into  one  of  the  overarched 
tunnels  which  abound  in  Nablus,  and  there  delivered  the 
book. 

1  The  last  words  are  indistinct,  and  this  may  not  be  the  correct  trans¬ 
lation;  but  the  first  part  is  plain,— “The  Perfect  [i.e.  complete]  Torah; 
Blessed  be  Jehovah.” 


12 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


With  some  difficulty  I  found  my  way  through  the 
strange,  dark,  narrow  streets  in  the  growing  darkness,  and 
returned  to  camp.  Next  morning  I  was  glad  to  meet  an¬ 
other  of  the  priests,  who  came  at  five  o’clock,  bearing  the 
roll  which  I  had  first  been  shown,  and  offered  it  to  me  for 
a  less  sum  than  at  first  he  had  asked.  At  length  we  agreed 
upon  a  price,  and  I  wrapped  the  manuscript  in  cloth  and 
brought  it  to  Jerusalem,  and  from  there  conveyed  it  home. 
In  addition  to  this  and  the  book  of  Genesis,  I  bought  a  lit¬ 
tle  volume  containing  the  story  of  Joseph;  a  leaf  of  an 
older  manuscript  containing  Numbers  xxvi.  19-xxvii.  15,, 
in  very  nicely-formed,  bold  letters ;  and  the  scrap  of  a 
very  old  and  tattered  parchment,  evidently  a  fragment  of 
a  synagogue  roll,  with  ancient  writing  (Gen.  xxvi.  20-22) 
on  one  side,  and  modern  writing  on  the  other.  It  is  this 
which  I  count  possibly  a  fragment  of  the  Sacred  Scroll  it¬ 
self,  because  of  its  antiquity,  its  color,  the  irregularity  of 
its  lines,  and  its  purple  ink. 

This  apparent  mystery  in  the  sale  of  their  manuscripts 
is  almost  wholly  pretended.  There  was  a  time  when  no 
money  would  buy  from  the  Samaritans  a  copy  of  their 
Torah.  Dr.  Robinson  tells  in  his  “Researches” 1  of  his 
repeated  efforts  to  buy  a  copy,  and  of  his  failure.  Now, 
however,  they  are  quite  willing  to  sell  their  more  recent 
manuscripts,  or  to  make  them  to  order. 

1  “  They  professed  to  have  about  a  hundred  manuscripts,  and  the  priest 
said  that  he  employs  himself  in  writing  out  copies  of  the  law.  When 
asked  if  they  would  sell  a  copy,  the  answer  was:  ‘  Yes,  for  fifty  thou¬ 
sand  piastres’  ”  (Vol.  ii.  pp.  281-282,  a.d.  1838).  This,  of  course,  was  a 
refusal,  as  the  sum  named  was  to  them  an  immense  one. 

“  The  priest  offered  to  dictate  a  translation  of  this  latter  [commentary] 
in  Arabic  to  Yacob,  to  be  written  down  by  him  for  Dr.  Smith  at  an  ex¬ 
pense  of  about  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  piastres.  But  he  would 
not  (or  did  not)  consent  to  part  with  a  copy  of  the  original  at  any  price, 
saying  that  it  was  against  their  religion  that  any  book  in  the  sacred  lan¬ 
guage  and  characters  should  go  into  the  hands  of  strangers  and  foreign¬ 
ers.  Perhaps  the  time  will  come  when  the  offer  of  a  high  price  will  re¬ 
move  their  scruples”  (Vol.  iii.  p.  130,  a.d.  1852). 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


13 


The  manuscript  which  I  procured  is,  of  course,  entirely 
modern,  but  it  has  some  interesting  characteristics  as  com- 
pared  with  Kennicott’s  list  of  Samaritan  manuscripts  in 
European  libraries.  These  various  manuscripts  were  for 
the  most  part  secured  elsewhere  than  at  Nablus,  and  from 
private  parties.  Without  exception  they  are  in  book 
form.  Most  of  them  are  incomplete,  and  many  of  them 
are  very  fragmentary.  My  own  is  a  scroll,  entirely  com¬ 
plete,  and  has  been  corrected,  pasted,  and  revised,  and  is 
of  the  same  width  as  the  ancient  one ;  it  was  made  in  the 
synagogue  at  Nablus,  by  the  priests,  and  doubtless  was 
copied  from,  and  compared  with,  their  older  manuscripts. 
It  has  been  actually  used  in  the  synagogue  worship,  which 
is  probably  not  true  of  any  one  of  the  manuscripts  in  Eu¬ 
ropean  libraries  to  which  reference  has  been  made. 

Returning  to  America,  I  was  fortunate  in  receiving  a 
visit  from  my  friend,  Rev.  Frank  H.  Foster,  D.D.,  who 
spent  some  weeks  with  me,  and  who  offered  to  assist  me  in 
reading  my  purchases.  To  him  I  am  greatly  indebted  for 
the  assistance  which  makes  this  article  possible.  We  found 
the  book  written  in  a  language  practically  identical  with 
the  Hebrew,  but  in  an  alphabet  much  older  ;  being,  in¬ 
deed,  an  independent  development  of  the  ancient  Hebrew. 
We  found  an  alphabet  in  McClintock  and  Strong’s  Cyclo¬ 
pedia,  our  only  other  apparatus  being  a  Hebrew  Bible  and 
lexicon,  and  these  were  quite  sufficient.  Dr.  Foster  began 
by  transliterating  into  Hebrew,  but  in  a  short  time  was 
able  to  read  readily  without  transliteration,  and  with  such 
facility  as  readily  to  correct  minor  errors  made  in  copying. 
To  illustrate  the  unlikeness  of  alphabets,  I  may  say  that  I 
had  replaced  the  manuscript  in  the  case,  judging  which 
side  up  it  ought  to  go  by  the  letter  shin ,  which  I  thought 
I  recognized.  But  instead  of  this  largest  of  modern  He¬ 
brew  letters,  it  proved  to  be  yodh ,  smallest  of  them,  and  to 
belong  the  other  side  up. 


J4 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


The  smaller  roll,  containing  Genesis,  proved  to  be  in¬ 
complete,  and  I  opened  correspondence  with  the  High 
Priest  through  Dr.  Wright  of  the  Church  Mission  Society 
Hospital  at  Nablus.  The  High  Priest  has  supplied  the 
missing  chapters,  and  the  book  is  now  entire.  I  have  also 
procured  the  book  of  Exodus  in  four  small  volumes.  I 
am  now  negotiating  for  other  manuscripts  through  other 
friends  in  Palestine,  as  Dr.  Wright  has  been  called  to  Eng¬ 
land.  Just  before  his  return,  however,  he  forwarded  to 
me  this  interesting  letter  in  Arabic,  with  the  translation 
made  at  the  Mission : — 

“  Nablus,  25th  April,  1903. 
“My  Dear  Friend  Mr.  William,  may  God  guard  his  existence,  Amen. 

“  With  great  pleasure  I  received  your  letter  sent  me  through  Dr. 
Wright.  I  was  glad  to  read  it  and  was  delighted  with  your  good  friend¬ 
ship.  You  made  me  know  that  the  roll  on  which  the  book  of  Genesis 
was  written  by  my  son,  was  wanting  three  chapters;  we  have  already 
written  them. 

“Further  you  ask  about  the  books  that  are  found  with  us,  so  I  have 
made  a  list  of  the  books  found  with  us;  you  may  look  it  over  and  let  us 
know  which  you  like  and  through  the  aforesaid  [Dr.  Wright]  we  will 
send  whatever  you  want.  He  bought  for  you  the  book  of  Exodus  in  four 
parts  complete  and  paid  us  the  price. 

“  In  regard  to  your  question  about  our  faith  in  Christ,  we  say  that  he 
is  yet  to  come.  The  dealings  of  the  European  Christians  are  very  good. 
May  I  ask  for  your  photograph  to  remain  with  us  as  a  reminder  of  you. 

“  Nothing  more  to  say  but  to  send  my  salaams  to  every  one  belonging 
to  you.  Jacob  [son]  of  Aaron, 

“  Samaritan  High  Priest,  in  Nablus.” 

I  am  glad  to  extend,  to  readers  of  this  article,  this  greet¬ 
ing  from  the  present  head  of  this  ancient  sect,  that  has 
maintained  the  celebration  of  the  Passover  and  other  Old 
Testament  observances,  almost  without  interruption,  and 
in  one  spot,  for  twenty-three  centuries. 

Three  times  a  year, — at  the  feasts  of  unleavened  bread, 
of  weeks,  and  of  tabernacles, — they  make  a  pilgrimage  to 
their  holy  mountain,  Gerizim,  and  there,  at  the  time  of 
the  Passover,  they  offer  sacrifices.  They  are  rigid  mono¬ 
theists,  and  they  look  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  a 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


15 


little  more  than  a  century,  when,  according  to  their  com¬ 
putation,  the  world  will  be  six  thousand  years  old.  The 
Messiah,  as  they  believe,  will  be  like  unto  Moses,  but  will 
not  be  greater  than  Moses. 

The  Samaritan  religion  as  an  independent  system  of 
worship  has  existed  since  432  b.c.,  and  had  its  origin  in 
the  opposition  that  arose  against  Nehemiah’s  attempt  to 
divorce  the  priests  who  had  married  foreign  women.  One 
of  these  priests,  Manasseh,  son-in-law  of  Sanballat,  the 
neighboring  governor  of  Shechem,  established  the  faith 
which  has  continued  in  that  same  spot  from  that  day  to 
this.  It  was  the  worship  of  Jehovah  on  the  basis  of  the 
Pentateuch  alone,  and  with  the  claim  that  Gerizim  ante¬ 
dated  Jerusalem,  and  was  the  one  lawful  place  of  worship. 
Jerusalem  has  been  captured  and  recaptured,  and  its  faith 
has  changed  from  Jewish  to  Christian  and  from  Christian 
to  Mohammedan,  but  the  faith  of  the  founders  of  the  Sa¬ 
maritan  religion  continues  without  change  of  location  or 
essential  change  of  form. 

Besides  their  periodic  celebrations  on  the  mountain,  they 
observe  regular  worship,  and  maintain  a  school,  in  their 
synagogue  in  the  city.  They  are  glad  to  add  to  their 
slender  revenues  from  tithes  the  small  fees,  generally  a 
franc  each,  which  tourists  leave  in  exchange  for  a  sup¬ 
posed  sight  of  their  ancient  manuscript. 

Their  relations  with  the  missionaries  are  friendly,  and  I 
have  no  reason  to  suppose  their  expressions  of  good-will  to 
Christians  are  otherwise  than  sincere. 

The  High  Priest  has  written  for  me  a  “list  of  the  books 
that  are  found  with  us,”  which  has  value  as  a  contribution 
toward  a  Bibliography  of  the  Samaritan  Religion.  This 
has  been  translated  for  me  by  Prof.  J.  R.  Jewett,  of  Chi¬ 
cago  University,  whose  courtesy  I  gratefully  acknowledge, 
and  I  have  compared  it  with  Professor  Pick’s  list  in  McClin- 
tock  and  Strong,  whose  articles  there  and  in  the  Bibuo- 


i6 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


theca  Sacra  constitute  the  most  valuable  work  accessi¬ 
ble  in  English  on  these  subjects.  I  have  added  a  few 
notes  to  Professor  Jewett’s  translation,  as  the  result  of  this 
comparison.  It  will  appear,  however,  that  each  list  con¬ 
tains  some  titles  not  in  the  other.  Prof.  Milton  S.  Terry, 
of  Northwestern  University,  has  looked  over  the  notes, 
and  given  me  the  benefit  of  his  judgment  in  the  matter. 

1.  Book  of  the  Roll  of  the  Law;  that  is,  the  five  books  of  Moses  only. 

2.  Kitah  el-Memyar,  known  as  Maymar  Marka  (The  Sayings  of  Ma- 
raka),  embracing  spiritual  sciences  dealing  with  the  precious  things  of 
the  sacred  law.  An  ancient  composition  dating  from  somewhat  more 
than  two  hundred  years  after  the  Messiah,  as  is  made  clear  in  th  ecom- 
mentary  on  the  Tolideh.  And  he  was  the  most  learned  of  the  learned 
men  of  our  nation  (sect).  It  contains  663  pages.  Translated  into  Ara¬ 
bic,  with  Hebrew  (i.e.  Samaritan)  text,  and  explained  in  Arabic — com¬ 
plete. 

NOTE. — Professor  Pick  gives  the  date  about  50  b.c.  It  gives  a  com¬ 
mentary  on  portions  of  the  Law. 

3.  Kitab  it  tabach  (Book  of  Sacrifice).  By  Sheikh  Abul  Hasan  of 
Tyre.  Ancient  Arabic,  with  Hebrew  evidential  examples.  Containing 
precious  instructions  relating  to  Samaritan  religious  matters,  and  the 
solving  of  doubtful  signs  (questions),  and  the  distinguishing  of  what  is 
permitted  from  what  is  forbidden  in  any  matter  whatsoever.  Number  of 
pages,  300. 

4.  Kitab  al-Kafi  (the  sufficient).  By  Sheikh  Yusuf  il-Askari.  An¬ 
cient.  Contains  instructions  and  inquiries  about  everything  in  the  Sa¬ 
maritan  religion.  The  number  of  pages  in  this  book  is  270.  Arabic, 
with  Hebrew  evidential  examples. 

NOTE. — Pick  gives  the  date  of  this  document  as  700  a.d. 

5.  Commentary  on  the  Fatiha.  By  Sheikh  Ibrahim  il-Kabasi.  Three 
hundred  and  fifty-one  years  old.  Number  of  pages,  200. 

N0TE. — a  book  explaining  the  blessings  and  cursings  of  the  Law. 

The  name  Fatiha  is'psually  given  to  the  first  Sura  of  the  Koran. 

6.  The  Book  of  the  Journey  of  the  Heart  to  the  Knowledge  of  the 
Lord  (whose  name  is  exalted).  It  also  has  ....  May  God  be  merciful  to 
him.  And  in  it  are  a  number  of  commands  and  injunctions  of  the  Law. 
Arabic,  with  Hebrew  evidential  examples.  Number  of  pages,  200. 

7.  Book  of  the  Commentary  of  the  First  Book,  i.e.  Bresit  (Genesis). 
Of  the  composition  of  Sheikh  Musalim  A1  Mar j an  id-Deuafi.  Contains 
a  solution  of  the  enigmas  and  difficulties  of  this  Book.  Contains  860 
pages. 

NOTE. — This  commentary,  which  covers  the  entire  book  of  Genesis, 
dates  from  the  eighteenth  century,  according  to  Pick.  Pick  notes  also 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


*7 


an  older  commentary  on  Genesis  i.-xxvii.,  dating  from  the  second  cent¬ 
ury  A.D. 

8.  Book  of  the  Commentary  of  the  Second  Book,  i.e.  Book  of  Shenot 
(Exodus).  Composition  of  Sheikh  Ghazali  ’d  Dwaik.  805  pages. 

9.  The  History  of  our  Community  from  the  Day  the  Samaritans  en¬ 
tered  the  Holy  Land  to  the  Present  Day.  Collected  by  Jacob,  present 
High  Priest.  In  Arabic.  Number  of  pages,  807. 

10.  The  Book  et-Tolideh,  in  Hebrew,  with  a  number  of  important 
events  given  with  their  dates.  Pages,  120. 

11.  A  book  containing  ten  chapters,  from  which  may  be  learned  the 
rites  of  the  Samaritan  religion,  and  what  is  their  procedure  in  their 
prayers  in  every  feast  and  festival,  and  what  is  their  marriage,  and  what 
their  divorce  and  their  fasting,  and  the  knowing  of  the  clean  from  the 
unclean,  and  readings  for  the  day  of  atonement.  With  readings  from 
the  Daw.  By  the  one  indicated  [i.e.  the  present  High  Priest],  as  was 
asked  of  us  by  one  of  the  scholars  of  Europe,  who  did  not  take  it,  owing 
to  his  death  before  its  completion.  Contains  370  pages. 

12.  Book  of  Prayer,  of  ancient  composition,  said  by  Marka  and  Am- 
ram  and  the  Priest  Phinehas,  and  some  of  the  prayers  derived  from 
Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.  In  Arabic  writing.  Contains  360  pages. 

13.  A  Torah  explained,  i.e.  translated  into  Arabic.  Two  parts,  Ara¬ 
bic  and  Hebrew.  Contains  620  pages. 

14.  A  book  of  the  orders  of  the  prayers  of  the  Sabbath  of  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  feast  of  the  unleavened  bread,  and  the  night  of  the  beginning 
and  the  day  of  the  beginning,  i.e.  of  the  year,  and  the  prayers  of  the 
night  of  the  beginning  of  the  month  when  it  corresponds  with  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  with  all  the  proper  words  and  ritual  (sayings).  By  a  number  of 
well-known  scholars.  Number  of  pages,  250. 

15.  The  book  of  the  orders  of  prayer  for  fourteen  days  of  Moed  Aph- 
sah  morning  and  evening,  and  the  prayers  of  the  two  Sabbaths  which  are 
in  them  and  their  orders.  Contains  175  pages. 

NOTE. — This  is  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  which  the  Samaritans 
celebrate  for  two  weeks.  The  distinction  between  this  feast  and  the 
Passover  is  more  marked  among  the  Samaritans  than  among  the  Jews. 

16.  The  book  of  the  order  of  the  prayers  of  the  Feast  of  the  Passover 
and  its  nights  and  its  days,  and  the  orders  of  prayer  for  the  seven  days 
of  the  unleavened  bread  and  their  Sabbaths,  and  all  that  concerns  the 
sacrifice.  Kiburim  of  the  Passover  in  general  and  in  particular.  Con¬ 
tains  420  pages. 

17.  The  order  of  the  prayers  of  the  fifty  days,  i.e.  the  Weeks,  and  all 
the  orders  of  those  weeks  with  their  different  arrangements.  Number 
of  pages,  220. 

18.  Book  of  the  orders  of  prayers  for  the  Wednesday,  known  as  the 
Wednesday  of  Pentecost,  and  the  Sabbath,  with  all  their  orders.  Con¬ 
tains  340  pages. 


i8 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


19.  Book  of  the  orders  of  prayers  of  celebration  of  fast,  i.e.  the  meet¬ 
ing  of  Moses  and  Haron,  with  the  prayers  of  the  night  of  Reosh-Ashena 
and  its  day,  and  the  ten  days  of  Hassalihu  (?)  evening  and  morning.  Con¬ 
tains  300  pages. 

Note. — Reosh-Ashena  is  the  feast  of  the  beginning  of  the  }7ear. 

20.  The  order  of  prayers  of  the  night  of  the  great  feast  and  its  day 
and  its  ritual  (lit.  sayings),  and  all  the  rites  attached  to  it.  Contains  650 
pages. 

21.  Order  of  the  prayers  of  the  seven  days  of  the  Feast  of  Taberna¬ 
cles  and  the  eighth  day  of  that  feast,  and  the  order  of  the  Sabbath  which 
falls  in  them.  Pages,  240. 

22.  The  Book  on  the  Commentary  on  the  Ten  Commandments.  Old. 
Composition  of  Abul-Hasm  of  Tyre.  Arabic.  Pages,  80. 

23.  Book  of  the  Questions  as  to  the  Difference.  By  the  Sheikh  Men- 
ja.  Eloquent  language  as  to  the  matter  of  the  Samaritan  religion;  and 
a  reply  to  the  Jews,  and  the  debate  between  this  Sheikh  and  the  Sheikh 
el-Fajyami,  the  Jewish  Rabbi.  Number  of  pages,  240. 

Note. — Menaji  Naphes  el-Din,  the  author  of  this  controversial  work, 
lived  in  the  twelfth  century. 

24.  Modern  Hebrew  book,  giving  information  as  to  the  birth  of  Mo¬ 
ses,  and  what  happened  by  his  hand,  and  what  helped  him  with  the 
Egyptians,  and  praises  about  him.  By  the  late  Kazar,  the  priest.  120 
pages. 

25.  A  modern  Arabic  book,  by  Sheikh  Ismial  is-Rashi,  May  God 
have  mercy  on  him.  120  pages. 

26.  The  Book  of  Joshua,  and  Commentary  upon  it.  Also  the  story 
of  Balaam  and  the  story  of  the  second  kingdom.  Ancient  composition. 
150  pages. 

NOTE. — This  book  has  been  known  to  scholars  since  1584,  when  a 

► 

copy  was  procured  in  Cairo.  It  is,  excepting  the  Torah,  the  most  valua¬ 
ble  of  the  Samaritan  books. 

27.  Book  of  the  feast  for  the  congregation  of  Israel,  by  various  Sa¬ 
maritan  scholars  and  Sheikhs.  150  pages. 

28.  Book  of  Joy(?)  By  a  certain  scholar.  A  collection  of  various 
materials.  Pages  200. 

NOTE. — This  is  possibly  the  treatise  on  Marriage  mentioned  in  some 
bibliographies,  written  in  the  twelfth  century  by  Abul-Barakat. 

29.  Book  by  an  unknown  author,  ancient.  Contains  many  things, 
Number  of  pages,  300. 

Note. — This  book,  whose  title  is  not  clear,  may  be  the  historical  ex¬ 
position  of  the  Daw,  showing  how  the  ancients  observed  it.  By  El- 
hhabr  Jacob,  in  the  twelfth  century. 

30.  Book  of  Wills  and  Testaments.  Contains  200  pages. 

Note. — This  book  was  written  by  Abul-Barakat,  in  the  twelfth  cent¬ 
ury,  who  also  wrote  a  book  on  marriage,  which  may  be  Number  28 
above. 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


19 


I  am  confident  that  the  knowledge  that  these  manu¬ 
scripts  are  now  obtainable  will  be  welcome  news  to  many 
scholars  and  friends  of  libraries.  In  recent  years  there  has 
been  little  effort  to  procure  them.  While  European  li¬ 
braries  now  contain  more  than  the  sixteen  manuscripts — 
mostly  incomplete — referred  to  in  ordinary  reference-books, 
the  additions*  are  neither  numerous  nor  notable,  and  the 
number  in  America  is  very  small.  Drew  Theological 
Seminary  has  one  ;  a  valuable  codex  procured  by  Rev.  W. 
Scott  Watson  in  1892  is  now  owned  by  the  New  York 
Public  Eibrary;1  and  Mr.  Watson  has  since  procured  an¬ 
other  which  he  believes  a  very  ancient  one.2  Every  large 
public  library  and  every  theological  library  might  well 
aspire  to  own  one.3 

It  is  a  very  interesting  fact  that  the  Samaritans  accept 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  these  only.  When  they  broke 
away  from  the  Jews,  they  took  the  books  that  at  that  time 
were  most  highly  esteemed  in  Palestine.  They  did  not 
take  any  of  the  prophets,  though  some  of  these  men  were 
from  their  own  tribes;  nor  did  they  take  the  book  of 
Joshua,  though  they  could  well  have  used  it,  and  did  in¬ 
deed  make  up  a  sort  of  sequel,  of  which  Joshua  is  the  hero, 
to  the  story  of  the  wilderness  wanderings,  which  book  of 
Joshua,  however,  they  never  admitted  to  their  canon. 
This  fact  raises  two  very  interesting  questions.  Had  the 
Jews  at  432  b.c.  so  far  agreed  upon  the  canonicity  of  their 
prophets  that  any  other  canon  than  the  Torah  was  then 
generally  recognized  in  Jerusalem?  The  earlier  proph¬ 
ets  existed,  and  some  at  least  of  the  books  of  the  Hagiog- 

1  See  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  1893;  American  Journal  of 
Semitic  Languages  and  Literature,  Vol.  xviii.  pp.  188-191;  Hebraica 
(1892-93),  pp.  216-225,  (1893-94),  pp.  122-156. 

2  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,  Vol.  xx.  pp.  173  et  seq. 

3  Since  this  article  went  to  the  printer,  word  conies  to  me  that  the  Brit¬ 
ish  Museum  has  recently  sent  to  Nablus,  and  purchased  a  large  number 
of  desirable  manuscripts  from  the  Samaritans. 


20 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


rapha ;  but  was  even  the  second  of  the  groups  of  the  sa¬ 
cred  books  then  regarded  as  of  equal  authority  with  the 
Law?  It  would  seem  not.  The  second  question  is  this: 
If  we  are  to  believe  in  a  Hexateuch  instead  of  a  Penta¬ 
teuch,  why  have  not  the  Samaritans  the  book  of  Joshua? 
They  could  have  used  it  admirably.  Joshua  was  one  of 
their  own  heroes,  and  made  his  home  in  their  own  city, 
and  established  on  one  of  the  mountains  above  it  the  first 
sanctuary  after  the  settlement  of  the  land.  The  Torah, 
with  its  five  books  or  six,  was  complete,  certainly  by  the 
time  of  Nehemiah  (444  b.c.),  and  the  Samaritan  schism  oc¬ 
curred  in  432.  Why  have  not  the  Samaritans  a  Hexa¬ 
teuch?  I  leave  the  question  for  others. 

The  value  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  considerable, 
as  showing  the  general  accuracy  of  the  received  text.  Dur¬ 
ing  all  the  centuries  of  separation,  these  two  sects  have 
preserved  independently  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible 
without  comparison,  nor  has  either  now  the  slightest  dis¬ 
position  to  compare.  Each  has  copied  from  its  own  cop¬ 
ies,  and  it  is  most  remarkable  that  the  differences  are  so 
slight  and  generally  unimportant.  The  Septuagint  is  just¬ 
ly  regarded  as  high  textual  authority  ;  but  the  Septuagint 
is  later  by  a  century  or  more  than  the  Samaritan.  More¬ 
over,  the  Septuagint  is  a  translation,  while  the  Samaritan 
is  hardly  more  than  a  transliteration,  or  rather  an  indepen¬ 
dent  preservation  in  an  ancient  but  modified  alphabet.  Be¬ 
sides  this,  the  Septuagint  has  often  been  compared  with  the 
Hebrew,  while  the  Samaritan  is  independent.  Surely  this 
text  is  not  less  valuable  than  the  Septuagint.  And,  while 
the  men  who  made  and  used  the  Septuagint  are  long  since 
dead,  the  men  who  are  still  making,  from  their  ancient 
copies,  modern  copies  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Samaritan, 
still  live  and  use  it,  and  are  under  every  possible  motive, 
as  their  fathers  were,  to  do  their  work  well.  Here,  then, 
is  opportunity  to  study  textual  criticism  at  first  hand. 


FRAGMENT  OF  VERY  ANCIENT  PARCHMENT  CONTAINING  GENESIS 

XXVI.  2-22. 


(Possibly  the  very  oldest  in  existence.  Size  of  original  parchment 

5Kx4KO 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  23 

Printing  is  “the  art  preservative  of  all  the  arts” — ex¬ 
cept  one.  The  art  of  making  manuscripts  from  earlier 
manuscripts  dies  beside  the  printing-press.  To  be  sure, 
Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  still  made  for 
use  in  Hebrew  synagogues,  but  who  knows  that  they  have 
not  been  corrected  from  printed  copies?  But  Tischen- 
dorf’s  discovery  at  Sinai  was  not  more  surely  independent 
of  the  printer  and  proof-reader  than  the  newest  copy  of  the 
Pentateuch  which  may  be  purchased  from  Jacob,  the  priest 
of  Shechem.  Even  if  the  text  had  no  value,  in  compari¬ 
son  with  the  Hebrew,  the  method  by  which  the  text  is 
produced  makes  the  student  of  textual  criticism  a  contem¬ 
porary  with  the  scribes  of  all  past  ages. 

It  is  instructive  to  compare  the  Samaritan  and  Hebrew 
texts  as  a  basis  for  our  conclusions  concerning  the  Jewish 
means  of  preserving  their  texts.  The  Massoretic  text  has 
so  obliterated  all  indications  of  individuality  that  we  are 
left  almost  to  conjecture  for  our  theories  of  the  care  which 
the  scribes  bestowed  on  their  work,  and  the  liberties  which 
they  took  with  the  text.  The  practice  of  the  Samaritans 
will  afford  us  an  interesting  insight  into  ancient  customs; 
for  their  ancient  and  contemporary  manuscripts  are  both 
before  us,  and  the  means  of  reproduction  are  now  going 
on.  Certainly  the  scribes  intend  to  be  accurate,  and  have 
at  hand  very  ancient  copies  for  comparison.  But  that  they 
made  mistakes  is  shown  in  my  own  codex,  where,  for  in¬ 
stance,  they  misspell  the  very  name  of  their  holy  mount¬ 
ain,  in  a  passage  which  presently  I  shall  quote.  Although 
many  errors  are  corrected  in  this  roll,  this  glaring  one, 
which  spells  Gerizim  “Gizitn,”  remains  untouched,  prob¬ 
ably  because  its  very  familiarity  caused  it  to  be  read  un¬ 
noticed. 

Christianity  did  not  wait  for  a  system  of  textual  criti¬ 
cism,  but  took  its  versions  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the 


24 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


Jews  had  come  to  possess  them.  When  Jerome  undertook 
a  new  translation,  he  was  condemned  almost  unreservedly ; 
even  Augustine  grew  timid  in  his  defense;  and  Jerome,  in 
his  replies  to  the  bitter  denunciations,  flung  at  his  accusers 
such  epithets  as  “fools,”  “stupids,”  and  “biped  asses.”  It 
was  dangerous  to  be  a  lower  critic  in  those  days.  After 
Jerome  had  been  dead  a  few  centuries,  however,  men  began 
to  honor  him  and  his  version,  and  they  were  so  well  con¬ 
tent  with  the  latter,  that  textual  criticism  became  almost 
a  lost  art,  and  some  of  Jerome’s  references  became  all  but 
unintelligible  for  something  like  a  thousand  years. 

For  instance,  Jerome  in  his  comment  on  Galatians  iii.  io 
upholds  the  genuineness  of  the  Samaritan  against  the  Mas- 
soretic  text;  while,  in  his  comment  on  Genesis  iv.  8,  he 
speaks  more  favorably  of  the  Hebrew.  Jerome  was  not 
alone  in  his  regard  for  the  “ancient  Hebrew  according  to 
the  Samaritan.”  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  notes  that  it  was 
written  in  a  character  more  ancient  than  the  Massoretic 
Hebrew.  Origen  quotes  it  with  respect.  There  were 
others  of  the  early  fathers  who  preferred  the  Samaritan  to 
the  Hebrew,  and  others  who  quoted  the  Samaritan  as  at 
least  entitled  to  consideration.  But  textual  criticism  in 
the  Mediaeval  Church  practically  ceased  with  the  adoption 
of  the  Vulgate.  For  hundreds  of  years  no  scholar  had 
seen  a  copy  of  the  Samaritan  version,  and  it  began  to  be 
doubted  whether  such  a  version  had  ever  existed.  The 
attempt  to  revive  the  question  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Reformation,  when  translations  were  the  order  of  the  day, 
met  with  little  popular  interest.  King  James’s  Version 
was  made  with  tacit  faith  in  the  Massoretic  text,  and  the 
question  about  the  Samaritan  version  seemed  likely  to 
come  to  nothing. 

About  this  time,  European  scholars  were  startled  by  the 
actual  arrival  in  Paris  of  a  copy  of  the  Samaritan  Penta¬ 
teuch.  Then  there  ensued  as  lively  and  fierce  a  contro- 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


25 


versy  as  modern  biblical  scholarship  has  ever  known.  Ju¬ 
lius  Caesar  Scaliger  (1484-1558)  is  said  to  have  called 
attention,  first,  to  the  importance  of  finding  a  copy  of  the 
Samaritan  text,  if  it  still  existed;  and  his  brilliant  son  Jo¬ 
seph  (1540-1609),  the  greatest  of  modern  scholars,  whose 
interest  in  textual  criticism  exceeded  even  that  of  his  dis¬ 
tinguished  father,  attempted  to  procure  such  a  manuscript 
by  correspondence  with  the  Samaritans  themselves.  These 
letters  were  answered  by  Samaritans  in  Cairo  and  Nablus  ; 
but  the  answers  were  long  on  the  way,  and  Scaliger  did 
not  live  to  receive  them.  He  died  two  years  before  the 
completion  of  the  King  James’s  Version,  and,  though  he 
visited  England,  he  cherished  a  poor  opinion  of  the  schol¬ 
arship  and  courtesy  of  England,  and  died  with  less  appre¬ 
ciation  of  his  contributions  to  scholarship  in  his  own  age 
than  has  been  accorded  to  him  in  later  generations. 

The  suggestion  of  the  Scaligers,  father  and  son,  bore 
fruit  in  1616.  Pietro  della  Valle  (1586-1652),  a  Roman 
nobleman,  having  been  disappointed  in  love,  at  first  con¬ 
templated  suicide,  but  instead  journeyed  to  the  Holy  Rand. 
He  tarried  a  year  in  Constantinople,  where  he  obtained  a 
commission  from  De  Sancy,  the  French  ambassador,  to  pur¬ 
chase  Samaritan  manuscripts.  Having  consoled  himself 
by  marrying  a  Christian  Syrian  woman,  who  proved  a 
brave  and  helpful  companion,  he  journeyed  far.  He  vain¬ 
ly  attempted  to  procure  manuscripts  in  Cairo  and  Gaza, 
where  at  that  time  there  were  Samaritan  colonies,  and  met 
with  no  better  success  at  Nablus,  the  center  of  the  Samar¬ 
itan  religion.  At  Damascus,  however,  he  was  able  to  buy 
two  copies  of  the  Pentateuch,  one  on  parchment  and  the 
other  on  paper.  The  latter  he  retained,  and  the  former  he 
sent  to  De  Sancy,  who  sent  it  to  the  Library  of  the  Ora- 
toire  in  Paris.  The  two  copies  were  used  in  making  the 
Paris  Polyglot,  and  were  reprinted  in  the  London  Polyglot. 

Archbishop  Ussher  was  profoundly  interested  in  these 


26 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


manuscripts,  and  began  an  effort  to  secure  more.  One  of 
these  was  sent  on  a  ship  that  fell  into  the  hands  of  pirates ; 
but  others  were  procured  at  great  cost.  In  1671,  Robert 
Huntington,  afterward  Bishop  of  Raphoe,  visited  the  Sa¬ 
maritans  at  Nablus.  The  Samaritans  appear  to  have  un¬ 
derstood  him  to  represent  that  there  were  Samaritans  in 
Europe,  and  they  furnished  him  with  a  copy  of  their  Law, 
and  wrote  a  letter  to  their  brethren  in  England.  Thomas 
Marshall,  Rector  of  Lincoln  College,  Oxford,  answered 
this  and  subsequent  letters,  of  which  there  were  five,  and 
these  letters  were  published  in  1699. 

In  1733,  Benjamin  Kennicott  (1718-1783)  issued  his 
dissertation  on  uThe  State  of  the  Printed  Hebrew  Text  of 
the  Old  Testament,”  combatting  the  doctrine  of  the  abso¬ 
lutely  correct  transmission  of  the  Hebrew  text,  by  a  com¬ 
parison  of  1  Chronicles  xi.  with  2  Samuel  v.  and  xxiii.  In 
1759  he  published  a  second  work  on  the  same  subject, 
giving  a  catalogue  of  extant  Hebrew  MSS.  in  London,  Ox¬ 
ford,  and  Cambridge,  and  defending  the  Samaritan  text. 
His  work  roused  strong  antagonism,  but  resulted  in  the 
contribution  of  ^10,000  to  buy  Hebrew  manuscripts,  so 
that  six  hundred  and  fifteen  Hebrew  codices  were  at  last 
gathered  and  collated,  and  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  texts 
were  printed  in  parallel  columns  in  a  work  extending  to 
thirty  volumes.'  In  this  work  he  was  able  to  use  sixteen 
Samaritan  manuscripts,  most  of  them  incomplete. 

It  is  little  wonder  that  the  controversies  waxed  hot  over 
these  documents.  King  James’s  Version  was  completed 
barely  five  years  before  the  arrival  of  the  first  of  these  man¬ 
uscripts;  was  all  this  work  to  be  done  over?  Yet  it  was 
not  chiefly  King  James’s  Version  that  the  conservatives  of 
that  day  rallied  to  defend ;  for  King  James’s  Version  was 
not  yet  in  very  high  favor.  The  real  question  was  as  to 
the  validity  of  the  sources  of  textual  knowledge.  The 
Protestants  were  placing  increased  emphasis  on  the  ipsis- 


' 

* 

. 


PENTATEUCH  AND  GENESIS. 
(Purchased  by  the  Author  at  Nablus.) 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


29 


sima  verba  of  Scripture;  nothing  pleased  the  Romanists 
more  than  to  adduce  proof  that  the  documents  from  which 
this  word  was  to  be  translated  were  themselves  uncertain. 
Generally  Protestants  opposed  the  Samaritan,  and  Roman¬ 
ists  favored  it;  and  where  a  Protestant  scholar  like  Kenni- 
cott  favored  the  new  discovery  he  did  so  at  his  peril.  With 
Kennicott  and  his  arguments,  however,  we  shall  have  fur¬ 
ther  occasion  to  deal.  Gradually  the  controversy  died  down. 
King  James’s  Version  won  its  way  to  popular  favor.  Ref¬ 
erences  to  the  Samaritan  became  more  infrequent.  In  1815 
Gesenius  devoted  an  exhaustive  work  to  the  subject,  show¬ 
ing  the  general  superiority  of  the  Massoretic  text,  and 
since  his  day  there  has  been  a  general  disposition  on  the 
part  of  conservative  scholars  to  ignore  it  altogether.1 

It  is  worth  noticing  that  here  and  there  a  voice  is  raised 
in  protest  against  this  indiscriminate  throwing  over  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch.  In  “The  Bible  and  its  Transmis¬ 
sion,”  Copinger,  after  pointing  out  the  large  number  of 
agreements  of  the  Samaritan  with  the  KXX.,  and  the  high 
value  set  upon  it  by  the  early  fathers,  says: — 

“It  is  quite  possible  that  sufficient  importance  is  not  now  given  to  this 
version;  and  we  venture  to  suggest  that  the  reaction  has  been  too  great. 
The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  certainly  contains  readings  which  do  not 
agree  with  the  present  Hebrew  text,  and  some  of  them  are  unquestiona¬ 
bly  to  be  accounted  for  by  its  being  copied  from  a  text  which  differed 
from  that  which  became  fixed  by  the  Massoretes.” 

Every  possible  conjecture  has  been  put  forth  and  defend¬ 
ed  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  version,  and  its  fre¬ 
quent  agreement  with  the  Septuagint.  The  theory  of  Ge¬ 
senius,  which  was  also  favored  by  Moses  Stuart,2  seems 
most  reasonable ;  namely,  that  the  Samaritan  and  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint  flowed  from  a  common  source  older  than  either, 
and  differing  from  the  Massoretic  text.  It  is  impossible 
that  such  a  text  should  be  wholly  lacking  in  value,  even 

1CfM  however,  the  Polychrome  Bible. — Ed. 

2  Biblical  Repository,  1832,  p.  714. 


3° 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


though  in  general  manifestly  inferior  to  the  Massoretic 
text.  Where  it  departs  from  both  the  accepted  text  and 
the  EXX.,  it  may  have  little  worth.  But  there  are  at  least 
one  thousand  readings,  most  of  them  exceedingly  trivial, 
where  the  LXX.  differs  from  the  Hebrew,  and  where  it  is  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  Samaritan.  The  principal  variations  were 
printed  by  Professor  Bernhard  Pick,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,1  in  a  series  of  articles,  which  is  really  more  valua¬ 
ble  than  the  work  of  Gesenius,  and  for  purposes  of  compar¬ 
ison  leaves  hardly  anything  to  be  desired.  His  article  in 
McClintock  and  Strong,  also,  is  very  full  and  painstaking. 

Excepting  in  a  few  points  where  there  are  doctrinal  dif¬ 
ferences  between  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  texts,  the 
Samaritan  version  is  quite  as  good  authority  as  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  and  perhaps  a  little  better  when  its  antiquity  is 
considered.  If  it  be  alleged  that  the  Samaritan  priests 
have  been  inferior  in  education  to  the  priests  of  Jerusalem, 
and  that  less  care  has  been  taken  in  copying  their  Scrip¬ 
tures,  it  may  be  answered,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  man¬ 
uscripts  have,  nevertheless,  a  striking  consistency,  having 
been  confined  to  a  few  communities,  and  of  late  to  a  single 
one,  in  which  they  have  been  less  ’frequently  copied,  and 
more  frequently  compared  with  versions  of  undoubted  an¬ 
tiquity.  Moreover,  this  singular  care  of  the  Jews  for  their 
manuscripts  dates  particularly  from  the  time  of  the  Mas- 
soretes ;  and  the  Samaritans  have  at  least  one  manuscript 
earlier  than  the  Massoretes.  In  points  of  doctrinal  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  the  corroborative 
value  ceases,  but  in  these  cases  the  question  of  which  text 
is  right  still  remains  to  be  settled. 

There  are  a  few  minor  differences  between  the  Samari¬ 
tan  and  the  Hebrew  where  the  Samaritan  agrees  with  the 
Septuagint,  and  is  almost  certainly  right.  For  instance, 

1  Vol.  xxxiii.  (1876)  pp.  264-287,  533-557;  xxxiv.  (1877)  PP-  79-87; 
xxxv.  (1878)  pp.  76-98,  309-325. 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


31 


in  Genesis  iv.  8,  the  translation  of  our  English  Bibles, 
“And  Cain  told  his  brother,”  is  most  unlikely.  The  mar¬ 
gin  of  the  American  Revised  is  better,  “And  Cain  said  un¬ 
to  his  brother.”  But  what  did  he  say  ?  According  to  the 
Samaritan,  the  EXX.  agreeing,  he  said,  “Ret  us  go  into 
the  field.”  The  circumstances  at  once  confirm  this  as  the 
probably  correct  text.  Instead  of  telling  Abel  what  Jeho¬ 
vah  had  said  to  him,  Cain  concealed  it,  and  invited  Abel 
into  the  field,  where,  treacherously  and  with  premedita¬ 
tion,  he  slew  him. 

Again,  in  Genesis  xlvii.  21,  it  is  recorded  that  the  Egyp¬ 
tians  came  to  Joseph,  and  offered  to  sell  not  only  their 
lands,  but  themselves.  Our  translations  from  the  Hebrew 
read,  “And  he  removed  them  to  the  cities.”  But  the  Sa¬ 
maritan  tells  us,  the  Septuagint  agreeing,  that  “he  en¬ 
slaved  them  to  slaves,”  which  is  probably  correct,  as  the 
context  would  indicate.  ^ 

But  there  are  three  points  in  which  there  are  differences 
of  some  importance,  and  in  which  one  text  or  the  other 
has  been  deliberately  changed.  The  first  of  these  is  Gene¬ 
sis  xxii.  2,  where  Abraham  is  commanded  to  sacrifice  Isaac 
in  “the  land  of  Moriah.”  We  know  nothing  about  the 
land  of  Moriah,  but  we  do  know  of  a  Mount  Moriah,  where 
later  stood  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  and  we  know  of  a 
land  of  Moreh,  the  region  about  Shechem.  Either  the 
Jews  have  changed  their  text  to  Moriah  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  occurred  where  later  their  tem¬ 
ple  stood,  or  the  Samaritans  have  changed  it  to  Moreh, 
and  for  the  same  reason,  i.e.  to  give  sacredness  to  their  own 
region.  I  refer  here  to  Dean  Stanley’s  able  treatment  of 
this  point,  in  which  he  seems  to  me  to  have  shown,  almost 
beyond  the  need  of  further  discussion,  that  Gerizim,  and 
not  Jerusalem,  was  probably  the  place  where  Abraham  of¬ 
fered  Isaac,  and  also  the  place  of  Abraham’s  meeting  with 
Melchizedek.1 

1  Stanley’s  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  316-319. 


£1  a 


32  77^  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 

Another  interesting  difference  is  the  insertion  in  the  Sa¬ 
maritan,  after  the  Ten  Commandments,  of  a  passage  com¬ 
manding  worship  on  Gerizim.  It  is  frequently  affirmed, 
that,  to  procure  the  insertion  of  this  command,  the  Samar¬ 
itans  have  grouped  the  Ten  Commandments  into  nine, 
making  this  a  tenth.  But  the  codex  before  me  does  not 
support  this  view.  The  Ten  Commandments  are  in  three 
groups  (Ex.  xx.  1-7,  8-1 1,  12-17),  exactly  as  with  us, 
though,  of  course,  not  divided  into  verses.  Immediately 
after  this,  and  in  the  lesson  for  the  same  day,  compiled 
from  three  places  in  Deuteronomy  (xi.  29;  xxvii.  2  et  seq. ; 
xi.  32),  is  the  command  to  worship  on  Gerizim. 

I  give  herewith  a  reproduction  of  the  section  following 


c*  s?'  ‘-3  Jim  ^3  ^ 

WjjcW 3 *3  4  €  ^  c * 

v 

(M 

» 

<7*idev  ■€  &  rv  -£V  <$}  &  J 

sp  ??/r  Crcy  'tfQ  <*  r- 

£  a*  >3  >3  <2?  3  c3®-  •'>'-?& -A  &  /*? 

w  <g «»  #<? «,  •  ?*  4?  3  or 

»tfTfy<rh  V&3HS  «. 

•tf»-  as-x  si ■  6^ «?«-  ■■£«&&'■  eye  ©  4 

- ••  •(  <•  ^<£J  3  ®i  •  «*  'K  3 


THE  PASSAGE  EOEEOWING  THE  DECAEOGUE. 

(The  marks  frcm  middle  to  left  end  of  last  line  indicate  the  end  of  the 
•  day’s  lesson,  which  begins  with  Ex.  xx.  1.) 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


33 


the  Decalogue,  showing  the  addition,  together  with  a 
transliteration  into  Hebrew,  line  by  line,  and  a  transla¬ 
tion  into  English  of  the  added  passage.  For  this,  also.  I 
am  indebted  to  Dr.  Foster. 


PASSAGE  FOUND  IN  THE  SAHARITA3  PENTATEUCH 

V 

{Codex  Rartonii)  Tmr^diately  follo^iry; 
k  Exodus  xx:l7, 

Hetorew  Trans  litem*  ion  "by  vrank  K.  Foster,  ]).  J). 
\ 


frith  ft  1  Jn  in  )o  'll?  ~js  b  ft  ft  &  ft  iJt.  4?**'  •  *  • 

•  •  *  r  -t  J  •  1“  -!  *  T  :  •  ;  T  T  T  T  -  v 

-3n*c  ft  nbftb*  :ur^'a.  bjv* 

*'  I  »  t  m  •  oj  r  •  t  #  ■*  “t*  ♦  ^  t  <r  *  •»  t 

wbh  y^ft-ftA  ftbftb^b  from  :ft*rn  ftftffrft 

b^ft  ‘obfti*  Hbbjv  ft^Vn  bftbtfft*ft>? 

-  V  »  v  v  -  s  •  -:  ••  r  •  t  t 

ftift1^  ftbfto  bx^’  fts)bi  ftftb 

I  v  Vi  -r  r  *  r  ••  -  ; 

ov)bLA  fttfr)  nbtto 

*  T  VS-  V  ••  -t  I  •  r 

••^ft'^v  hVn’'  ftibwfruv  ft)bfr  ftitW’ 

frifttox^i  frnbfc1!  btW  pftbfr? 

**  *  T  •  t  I  t  {  •  T  !  #  T  *  T  •  ▼  I 

pftjft  ftbghjrtftft  ft1?1?  ftftv 

_  .  .fS..  <*l  j*.  .  %.  .. 

'*#"n  ’jjji&r.  yiNia  wii  K-ii»  •^n  "nm* 

hajt  ^ia  nnis-'a 

V  )  «.  ..  ..  T  *  *  ”  T  T  *-»  T 

>^=§S  *  * . 

""  .  I'as&M'Q 


“  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  Jehovah  thy  God  shall  bring  thee  to 
the  land  of  the  Canaanite,  whither  thou  goest  to  possess  it,  that  thou 
shalt  set  thee  up  great  stones,  and  plaster  them  with  plaster.  And  it 
shall  be,  when  ye  pass  over  the  Jordan,  that  ye  shall  setup  these  stones 
[which]  I  command  you  this  day,  in  Mount  Gizim  [sic\.  And  thou  shalt 
build  there  an  altar  to  Jehovah  thy  God,  an  altar  of  stones.  Thou  shalt 


34 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


not  lift  up  upon  them  iron.  With  perfect  stones  shalt  thou  build  the 
altar  of  Jehovah  thy  God.  And  thou  shalt  sacrifice  peace-offerings,  and 
thou  shalt  eat  there,  and  shalt  rejoice  before  Jehovah  thy  God.  This 
mountain  is  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan,  behind  the  way  of  the  going 
down  of  the  sun,  in  the  land  of  the  Canaanites  which  dwell  in  the  Ara- 
bah,  over  against  Gilgal,  beside  the  oak  of  Moreh,  beside  Shechem.” 

It  is  not  necessary  to  debate  long  which  of  these  texts  is 
correct  here.  It  is  safe  to  follow  the  rule  to  “  prefer  the 
shorter  reading,”  and  to  treat  this  passage  in  the  Samaritan 
as  an  interpolation  in  this  place  supplied  from  the  parallel 
passages  in  Deuteronomy.  But  the  question  recurs  when 
we  come  to  a  consideration  of  the  most  important  of  the 
differences,  the  question  whether  the  memorial  stones  com¬ 
manded  to  be  set  up  by  Joshua  were  erected  on  Ebal  or 
Gerizim. 

This  passage  (Deut.  xxvii.  4)  is  that  one  over  which  the 
discussions  of  Kennicott’s  time  were  waged.  As  the  whole 
story  is  involved  in  the  discussion,  it  will  be  well  to  quote 
the  introduction  to  the  cursings  and  blessings : — 

“  And  Moses  and  the  elders  of  Israel  commanded  the  people,  saying, 
Keep  all  the  commandment  which  I  command  you  this  day.  And  it 
shall  be  on  the  day  when  ye  shall  pass  over  Jordan  unto  the  land  which 
the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee,  that  thou  shalt  set  thee  up  great  stones, 
and  plaister  them  with  plaister:  and  thou  shalt  write  upon  them  all  the 
words  of  this  law,  when  thou  art  passed  over;  that  thou  mayest  go  in 
unto  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee,  a  land  flowing  with 
milk  and  honey,  as  the  Lord,  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  hath  promised  thee. 
And  it  shall  be  when  ye  are  passed  over  Jordan,  that  ye  shall  set  up 
these  stones,  which  I  command  you  this  day,  in  mount  Ebal,  and  thou 
shalt  plaister  them  with  plaister.  And  there  shalt  thou  build  an  altar 
unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  an  altar  of  stones:  thou  shalt  lift  up  no  iron  tool 
upon  them.  Thou  shalt  build  the  altar  of  the  Lord  thy  God  of  unhewn 
stones:  and  thou  shalt  offer  burnt  offerings  thereon  unto  the  Lord  thy 
God:  and  thou  shalt  sacrifice  peace  offerings,  and  shalt  eat  there;  and 
thou  shalt  rejoice  before  the  Lord  thy  God.  And  thou  shalt  write  upou 
the  stones  all  the  words  of  this  law  very  plainly. 

“And  Moses  and  the  priests  the  Levites  spake  unto  all  Israel,  saying, 
Keep  silence,  and  hearken,  O  Israel;  this  day  thou  art  become  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou  shalt  therefore  obey  the  voice  of  the 
Lord  thy  God,  and  do  his  commandments  and  his  statutes,  which  I  com¬ 
mand  thee  this  day. 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


35 


“And  Moses  charged  the  people  the  same  day,  saying,  These  shall 
stand  upon  mount  Gerizim  to  bless  the  people,  when  ye  are  passed  over 
Jordan;  Simeon,  and  Levi,  and  Judah,  and  Issachar,  and  Joseph,  and 
Benjamin:  and  these  shall  stand  upon  mount  Bbal  for  the  curse;  Reu¬ 
ben,  Gad,  and  Asher,  and  Zebulun,  Dan,  and  Naphtali.  And  the  Le- 
vites  shall  answer,  and  say  unto  all  the  men  of  Israel  with  a  loud  voice, 

“  Cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  a  graven  or  molten  image,  an  abom¬ 
ination  unto  the  Lord,  the  work  of  the  hands  of  the  craftsman,  and  set- 
teth  it  up  in  secret.  And  all  the  people  shall  answer  and  say,  Amen.” 
(Deut.  xxvii.  I —15. ) 

This  is  not  a  question  which  can  be  settled  by  the  al¬ 
leged  superiority  of  the  Massoretic  text.  One  whole  group 
of  manuscripts,  the  Hebrew,  agrees  that  the  stones  were  set 
up  on  Ebal;  the  other  entire  group  that  they  were  erected 
on  Gerizitn.  Both  sets  of  scribes  intended  to  be  accurate 
in  general ;  neither  was  above  the  possibility  of  mistake  or 
even  of  intentional  change  to  prove  a  point.  A  familiar 
instance  is  Judges  xviii.  30,  where  the  Jewish  scribes  have 
changed  “Moses”  to  “Manasseh.”  Desiring  to  free  the 
grandson  of  Moses  from  the  opprobrium  of  being  the  first 
idolater,  and  also  at  the  same  time  to  give  a  gratuitous 
fling  at  the  Samaritans,  they  had  inserted  a  nun ,  and 
changed  Moses  to  Manasseh,  as  it  abides  to  this  day.  If 
the  Jews  were  not  too  good  to  make  such  a  change  for  a 
trivial  advantage,  they  can  hardly  have  been  too  good  to 
have  changed  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  when  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  priority  of  their  places  of  worship  was  involved. 

Robertson  Smith,  and  the  modern  critics  generally, 
agree  with  the  conservatives  of  Kennicott’s  day  in  support 
of  the  Massoretic  reading.  Robertson  Smith  in  the'  Bri- 
tannica  thinks  the  Samaritan  reading  “glaringly  unhistor- 
ical.”  The  reason,  of  course,  why  the  unnamed  sanctuary 
in  Deuteronomy  cannot,  in  his  thought,  be  Gerizim,  and 
must  be  Jerusalem,  is  that,  when  Deuteronomy  was  pro¬ 
mulgated  in  621,  Jerusalem  was  an  established  fact.  But, 
in  that  case,  why  did  not  the  Jews  write  up  Deuteronomy 
to  the  facts  as  they  were,  and  save  all  chance  of  a  dispute? 


36 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


And,  when  the  Samaritans  had  choice  of  two  mountains 
for  their  temple,  why  did  they  choose  the  one  which  would 
require  them  to  change  the  text  of  the  Kaw  which  they  al¬ 
ready  had? 

The  arguments  of  real  value  on  this  point  are  found  in 
the  incidental  allusions  in  the  account  of  the  setting  up  of 
the  stones  on  either  Gerizim  or  Ebal.  I  cannot  agree  that 
any  one  has  answered  Kennicott  in  his  study  of  these. 
Omitting  some  trivial  arguments,  he  sustains  the  conten¬ 
tion  that  the  memorial  stones  erected  after  the  passing  of 
Jordan  were  upon  Gerizim,  as  the  Samaritans  claim,  by 
these  proofs,  which  I  have  adapted  somewhat  to  the  argu¬ 
ment  as  it  now  might  stand : — 

1.  That  Gerizim  was  the  mountain  of  blessings,  and 
altogether  more  sacred  in  its  associations  than  Ebal.  It  is 
quite  unlikely  that  the  altar  would  be  erected  on  the  mount 
of  cursing. 

2.  That  the  Samaritans,  building  their  new  temple, 
the  rival  of  that  in  Jerusalem,  would  gladly  place  it  in  a 
spot  known  to  be  sacred,  even  as  Jeroboam  erected  his  calf 
at  Bethel,  because  of  its  ancient  and  recognized  sanctity. 
Political  considerations,  as  well  as  religious,  would  have 
determined  this  choice  by  Sanballat  and  Manasseh. 

3.  That,  as  seen  from  Shechem,  Ebal  is  parched  and 
barren,  while  Gerizim’s  more  verdant,  fruitful,  and  beauti¬ 
ful  side  is  toward  the  city ;  so  that  in  all  times  Gerizim 
must  have  had  the  more  pleasant  associations  in  the  city, 
the  valley,  and  among  the  people  who  passed  through  the 
gateway  between  the  two  great  hills. 

4.  That  Jotham  chose  Gerizim  as  the  pulpit  for  his  par¬ 
able,  probably  because  it  was  already  a  sacred  spot. 

5.  That  probably  Gerizim  was  the  traditional  spot  of 
the  offering  of  Isaac. 

Omitting  some  proofs  which  do  not  seem  to  me  impor¬ 
tant,  Kennicott  went  on  to  show  : — 


I 


THE  HIGH  PRIEST  JACOB,  AND  THE  HOEY  SCROEE  OF  NABEUS. 


1 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


39 


6.  That  Joshua’s  own  tribe,  Ephraim,  the  tribe  whose 
capital  Shechem  was,  was  stationed  upon  Gerizim,  at  the 
time  of  the  dedication  of  the  memorial  stones,  and  that 
Joshua  would  certainly  have  been  with  his  tribe  near  the 
stones  that  were  being  dedicated. 

7.  That  the  stones  were  to  be  used  as  soon  as  set  up  for 
sacrifice;  who  were  to  offer  the  sacrifices  on  Ebal?  Were 
sacrifices  to  be  offered  by  Reuben,  or  Gad,  or  Asher,  or 
Zebulun,  or  Dan,  or  Naphtali?  For  these  were  on  Ebal. 
The  great  tribes  were  on  Gerizim  ;  and  there  were  sta¬ 
tioned  the  Levites,  who  only  had  the  right  to  offer  sacrifice. 
It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  altar  was  erected  on  the 
mountain  where  no  one  could  use  it. 

Kennicott’s  conclusion  is  strong,  and  to  my  mind  thor¬ 
oughly  convincing.  I  give  it  in  all  the  emphasis  of  the 
original  type: — 

“  And  shall  we  then  refuse  to  allow  that  the  Altar  and  the  Law  were 
placed  on  the  mount  of  Blessings—  on  the  same  mount  with  Joshua ,  the 
heroic  leader  of  the  people— on  the  same  mount  with  their  glory,  the 
tribe  of  Judah — and  on  the  same  mount  with  the  tribe  of  Levi,  who 
were  the  proper  and  divinely  appointed ,  the  only  Ministers  at  that  very 
altar?  Will  there  be  the  least  presumption  in  supposing  the  reader  to 
be  now  persuaded  that  this  corruption  has  been  hitherto  charged  upon 
the  innocent  instead  of  the  guilty  ?  Certainly,  if  there  is  not  here  dein  - 
onstration ,  there  is  at  least  strong  probability—  that  GERIZIM,  thus  con¬ 
fessed  to  have  been  the  mount  of  BLESSINGS  and  the  station  of  the  tribe 
of  DEVI,  was  the  mount  which  was  to  be,  and  which  was,  honored  with 
the  Altar  and  the  Law.  And  if  the  reader  be  convinced,  that  the  Sa¬ 
maritans  have  NOT  corrupted  their  Pentateuch  in  this  celebrated  arti¬ 
cle,  he  must  be  convinced  that  THE  JEWS  have  corrupted  it,  and  cor¬ 
rupted  not  only  this  text  in  their  Pentateuch ,  but  also  the  corresponding 
text  in  Joshua .”1 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  cannot  account  for  the  history  of 
Israel  without  believing  that  the  command  to  establish  a 
central  sanctuary,  so  often  repeated  in  Deuteronomy,2  is 

1  Dissertation  the  Second  on  the  Printed  Hebrew  Text,  Oxford,  1759, 
PP-  75-76. 

2  Deut.  xii.  5-21;  xiv.  23;  xv.  19-20;  xvi.  11;  xxvi.  2,  etc.  In  none  of 
these  passages  is  the  place  named. 


40 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


much  older  than  621  b.c.  Whatever  may  be  true  of  the 
completed  book  of  Deuteronomy,  this  part  of  it,  which  is 
the  central  part  in  the  argument  that  brings  the  book  down 
to  the  time  of  Josiah,  must  have  been  much  older.  And 
it  is  remarkably  significant  that  in  all  these  the  sanctuary 
is  unnamed.  The  conviction  has  grown  upon  me  in  this 
study  that  the  Jews  possessed  this  command  in  some  form 
essentially  like  that  in  Deuteronomy  long  before  Josiah’s 
day,  and  before  the  rise  of  Jerusalem. 

But  if  the  Jews  had  such  a  command  for  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  central  sanctuary,  did  they  obey  it?  Not  at  Je¬ 
rusalem,  certainly.  Nor  yet  at  Shiloh,  though  there  the 
ark  abode.  If  they  established  any  central  sanctuary,  it 
was  at  Shechem,  and  the  ceremony  of  dedication  is  that 
outlined  in  the  passage  already  quoted  at  length,  in  the 
setting  up  of  the  stones,  probably  on  Gerizim,  which  name 
the  Jews  long  afterward  changed  to  Ebal,  for  the  supposed 
honor  of  their  own  later  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem. 

It  seems  to  me  altogether  probable  that,  at  the  time  of 
the  settlement  of  Palestine,  Shechem  was  the  logical  cap¬ 
ital,  and  probably  the  place  intended  as  the  nation’s  sanc¬ 
tuary.  Situated  midway  between  Dan  and  Beersheba  and 
between  the  Jordan  and  the  sea,  the  place  to  which  Abra¬ 
ham  had  directed  his  steps,  and  the  traditional  scene  of 
the  meeting  with  Melchizedek  and  of  the  offering  of  Isaac ; 
the  home  of  Jacob;  the  place  toward  which  for  forty  years 
the  nation  had  borne  the  body  of  Joseph, — it  was  admira¬ 
bly  fitted  to  be  the  national  capital  and  sanctuary.  There 
Joshua  established  his  home ;  there  at  the  beginning  he 
caused  the  Daw  to  be  ratified  ;  there  he  erected  the  memor¬ 
ial  and  altar;  there  he  convened  the  tribes  in  solemn  as¬ 
sembly.  But  the  coming  to  the  throne  of  a  king  from 
Judah,  with  the  long  strife  between  David  and  the  house 
of  Saul,  made  Judah  the  stronghold  of  the  new  dynasty; 
the  capture  of  the  Jebusite  fortress  after  a  taunting  threat 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  41 

gave  David  occasion  to  occupy  it,  first  as  a  fort,  then  as  a 
capital,  and  finally  as  a  sanctuary.  Thither,  in  a  time 
when  worship  had  declined,  and  the  ark  was  neglected, 
he  removed  that  sacred  relic  from  its  northern  home.  The 
first  attempt  ended  disastrously,  and  David  waited  long  be¬ 
fore  repeating  it.  But  at  last  the  ark  was  removed,  though 
the  plan  of  erecting  a  permanent  temple  was  not  accom¬ 
plished  in  his  day.  The  whole  narrative  sustains  the  im¬ 
pression  that  no  time-honored  tradition  at  that  time  marked 
Jerusalem  as  the  central  place  of  worship,  and  raises  the 
question  whether  the  death  of  Uzzah  was  not  interpreted 
as  a  national  rebuke  for  the  removal  of  the  ark  to  adorn 
the  made-to-order  capital  of  the  new  military  dynasty. 
But,  the  ark  once  there,  the  center  of  worship  was  definite¬ 
ly  established. 

The  building  of  the  temple  in  the  same  isolated  and 
sterile  town  by  Solomon  gave  the  movement  new  power  ; 
and  the  destruction  of  the  outlying  shrines  by  Hezekiah 
and  still  more  by  Josiah,  completed  what  was  begun  by 
David.  Jerusalem  and  Judah  were  established  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  Shechem  and  Ephraim,  and  the  burden  of  taxa¬ 
tion  under  Solomon  fell  heavy  on  the  other  tribes,  that  Ju¬ 
dah  might  escape.1  The  nation  grew  wider  with  prosper¬ 
ity,  but  the  king’s  thought  limited  the  real  kingdom  to 
Judah,  and  at  last  came  the  inevitable  rending  apart  of  Ju¬ 
dah  and  Israel.  Judah  with  its  provincial  capital  stood 
alone  against  the  real  and  greater  Israel. 

If  Shechem  had  been  the  national  capital,  with  all  its 
sacred  associations,  dear  to  all  the  tribes,  and  central  to 
them;  if  the  ark  had  found  its  abiding-place  on  Gerizim, 
instead  of  in  the  city  which  David  captured  from  the  Jeb- 
usites,  and  which  had  no  sacred  past  so  far  as  we  know ;  if 
Judah  had  been  less  arrogant  and  haughty,  and  the  kings 

1  Solomon  seems  to  have  exempted  Judah  from  annual  tribute,  the  bur¬ 
den  falling  on  the  other  tribes  (1  Kings  iv.  7-19). 


42 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch . 


had  favored  it  less  at  the  expense  of  the  other  tribes,  as 
must  have  been  the  case  had  the  capital  been  in  Ephraim ; 
if  the  nation  had  centered  about  a  city  built  not  on  an  un¬ 
watered  hill,  but  in  the  most  fertile  valley  in  the  land, 
and  flanked  by  noble  mountains  rising  above  it  for  defense, 
would  there  have  been  the  disruption,  rivalry,  bad  states¬ 
manship,  and  overthrow  which  the  Bible  records?  What 
if  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  had  been  followed  ? 

'  w?- ZD' 

Z'*  *  CV  * 


THE  SAMARITAN  ALPHABET. 
(As  written  by  the  High  Priest.) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBAN  A 


3  0112  041916559 


